Talk:abduction

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Law[edit]

I have a problem with the following paragraph:

(Law) The wrongful, and usually the forcible, carrying off of a human being; as, :the abduction of a child, the abduction of an heiress.

Especially with the word "wrongful". Is there a different name for a "justified" abduction? - Henryk911 01:28 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

This seems to be a function of the word's context, compounded by the fact that we are starting from a 1913 definition. I both agree and disagree. In the general sense you are right, and perhaps there should be another line to express that. In the usage of this word in Law as indicated, the wrongful or illegal aspect is an important part of the meaning. Eclecticology 07:08 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

RFV[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


Rfv-sense X 3.

  1. (computing) The process of inference to the best explanation; abductive reasoning.
  2. Determining the best or most plausible of many possible explanations for a set of facts
  3. (education) The process used in getting students to see disciplinary regularity through the use of metaphor.

We have a sense for the logic context that seems valid: A syllogism or form of argument in which the major is evident, but the minor is only probable.

The three RfVed senses have no citations, the first two seeming possibly included in the logic sense above, the education sense seems tendentious, possibly a copy of an ad hoc definition in a monograph or text. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Timed out. Uncited DCDuring TALK 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


RFV 2[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


RFV-sense "The illegal taking and detention of a female, as young as a teenager, for the purpose of forced wedlock or rape."

This is very specific, and legal definitions are notoriously variable (from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). I appreciate the work that's been put into providing references for this one, but I wonder: even if this specific definition is citeable, is a similar sense pertaining to men also citeable? And are the senses really age-specific? Would abduction of a pre-teen for marriage not count? - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems reasonable to me, I mean yes I suppose a pre-teen would also count. The idea of abduction originally was taking off a young unmarried woman. I think I would be tempted to just drop the legal tag if anything. I seriously doubt it ever applied to men, what makes you think it might though? Ƿidsiþ 05:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
No matter what it originally meant (evidence?) isn't this just an overly-specific form of "The wrongful, and usually forcible, carrying off of a human being."? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
We do care about historical meanings, if that's what this is. I looked at Century 1913 and MW 1913, 1933, and 1828 to see whether it is historically more specific. MW 1828 certainly had it as being specific, Century at bit less so. MW 1913 was closer to the modern sense of kidnapping. MW 2 and 3 both have it as the legally specific sense, also including wards, referring to the variety of statutory language, and also the modern inclusive non-legal sense.
It would be trivial to cite the definition. It would be incumbent on the challenger in this kind of case to produce citations that indicate there are other statutes that use the word to apply to, say, male minors or adults. But, even with such citation, a legal definition would still say that the term was sometimes restricted, though the burden of attestation would seem to be back on those who want to have the specific legal sense. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I think abduction of a preteen would fall under kidnapping. I'm guessing that abduction allows for the possibility that the abductee ("child, a ward, a wife, &c.") was not taken by force, but by "fraud, persuasion". Kidnapping seems to require "force" or "carrying away" and "against one's will", with the purpose often being "ransom". All of these specifications fit with what I would perceive as being the central uses of the terms currently. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The definition of abduction is not reliant on the purpose or legal basis at any time. Those are definitions of the word excuses and you should act accordingly. RTG (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
In fact this is so odd I might keep my eye on it and argue the bit. RTG (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
For instance, the definition of detention is not reliant on the accusation of a crime, or even the presence of a legal system. Making sense? RTG (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
@RTG I have literally no idea what you're on about. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I said, abduction has nothing whatsoever to do with the age of a pre teen, and what the heck are you all on about, and other stories. You really fail to see that? Come on like? RTG (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I agree with that however it seems to have no relation to what you've said above. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Illegal, teenager, wedlock, rape etc. You are discussing the reliance of the definition on these words, but it does not. It means to take away the person with special focus on impropriety. Perhaps the legal nature is somewhat useful in the definition but all the other stuff is purely fanciful and in my opinion too much so. It could just as well mean the removal of a chimpanzee for the purpose of managing a theme park, and I'd rather it said that than all the thing about raping babies or whatever if you don't mind. Half lolling and half OMGWTFZOR. RTG (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
@RTG: You seem to be having trouble with the idea that words have more or less restrictive meanings in different circumstances. In a legal context the word abduction might well have or have had a meaning more specific than in general usage, just as it has a different meaning in physiology. A good dictionary prepares its users for such possibilities. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
DCDuring, in this case that does not apply. I have a problem? You guys just made all that stuff up. Raping teenagers? Come on, I am just saying how fanciful that is. Adding so much information where it need not apply taints the dissemination of the intended information. Is there not a guideline about that? You guys should write one. You guys shouldn't debate all that stuff without concrete foundation, or you'll get confused no matter how smart or versed you are. The world works in that way. RTG (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Quoting RTG above "Illegal, teenager, wedlock, rape etc. You are discussing the reliance of the definition on these words". Um, no we're not. You might be but we're not. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The origins and definitions of the word abduction predate the English language and the specifics you are debating are so obscure and in content so ridiculous. The OP cites nothing and someone else then alludes to what I assume is Mirriam Websters c17th and I just fail to accept that the meaning of the word was delayed for a few years to mean something specifically about children. To suggest that a word dramatically and specifically changed ought to take more than a single publication. The significance of the citation ought to reflect the significance of the comparison in some cases at least, and this is particularly long winded, perculiar and obscure. It bangs of nought but error as they say in Bolivia and it's kind of distasteful to boot to say least. There you go I used the taste word mock me with laughter and kill me with fire I am spot on right there. RTG (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. It is not to find all the real meanings of abduction, but rather to see if anyone can find cites of actual use of the specific meaning challenged. If none are forthcoming, the sense will be removed from the entry. SpinningSpark 18:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
RTG, I find your tone highly inappropriate given the content of this discussion. That said, I don't see what we have achieve by discussing this here. Nobody's denying that young girls can be abducted and then subsequently forced to marry or be raped, the issue is why have a separate sense for it. Also, providing you believe abductio, it is etymologically correct to talk about abduction of a woman being the original sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
"By extension", circumstantially, because they were the easy prey for the abductors resulting most abductions being of young female children, not because abduction meant children or women in particular. And the difference is not subtle. I am insisting that for such an elaborate implication the basis be solid and readily researchable, not synonymous with possible errors, or the quality level is at risk. My frivolous tone reflects my impression of the discussion. The subject is ridiculous while the consideration is all too serious and directed in its favour. I seek to insult it. That is my intended tone. It is an old inaccuracy, not a true definition. RTG (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Speednat has reworked the entry and detagged it. I suppose this is resolved. - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)